Legal Commentary

The winner of the Hiett Aaward, historian David Greenberg, had some interesting things to say recently about the much-maligned "Main Stream Media" and the self-loving bloggers who denigrate them. He was in Dallas last week to accept the award, and talked to the editorial staff of Sunday's "Points" page in The Dallas Morning News.

There has never been more information about politics and the presidency accessible to ordinary people. Yet this information overload does not seem to be making people smarter about politics.

In the past, the scarcity of information may have been one reason for the impoverishment of our political discussion, but I don't think it was ever the main reason. The deeper reason is that people often don't want to hear information or opinions that contradict what they already believe. That tendency is exacerbated these days when people get their news from opinionated Internet news sources that mainly reinforce their perspectives.

I realize that there are problems with the ideas of objectivity and balance, as everyone knows. But I still find it hard not to conclude that the best remedy is to expose ourselves ? with as much open-mindedness as we can muster ? to a range of ideas and arguments.

Many cheer the Internet for democratizing information and disempowering elite media gatekeepers. Do you?

I'm very skeptical of the claims that the Internet is "democratizing" information. Democracy refers to a system of government. But now we throw the term around. We use it to describe any form of leveling. Free markets, for example, aren't "democratic"; they're a good thing, for the most part, but they allow for consumer choice, and they can exist with or without self-government. So we shouldn't use the word "democratic" to describe the rise of bloggers and amateur journalists, either.

It's a welcome development in some ways, but a well-functioning democracy also depends on a social trust in expert authorities. Experts and professionals are indispensable to our society and system of government. But these days expertise and professionalism have become dirty words in some quarters. There's a lot of anti-intellectualism among those who would dethrone the so-called elite media gatekeepers. The best bloggers are the ones who actually draw on their expertise or specialized knowledge in certain fields to contribute to the public discourse ? rather than merely sounding off.

I recalled these comments recently while reading a self-proclaimed member of the new media exulting about the reported decline in circulation numbers of a major metropolitan newspaper. He claimed that this decline was evidence that blogs and other online media were supplanting the main stream print media because, he asserted, the "MSM" were too liberal and, therefore, out of touch with the more conservative majority of the American public. Therefore, former readers were finding their information elsewhere, i.e., online.

I think that the decline of daily newspaper readership began long before the advent of the World Wide Web and certainly prior to the "popularity" of blogs (television might have had something to do with it). The latest Pew Internet research (admittedly, a couple of years behind the curve) indicates that the problem of declining newspaper readership has more to do with the declining literacy of the American public than it does with blogs or the Internet in general. Of 150 countries ranked in literacy, the world's only remaining "superpower" ranked 49th ("WE'RE 49! WE'RE 49!") Of Americans who use the Internet, only 27% read blogs and 62% don't even know what a blog is. Bloggers who are concerned about the long-term fate of this country ought to be concerned rather than crowing.

I agree wholeheartedly, based upon personal experience only, with Professor Greenberg's contention that most people want to exist in an echo chamber. It's difficult to argue that much of the blogosphere is simply that. People carve out a list of blogs that they read that serve them what they want to hear. To steal from Paul Simon, "a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest." I'm as guilty of this as the next man, although I confess to the mortal sin of having provoked some of those bloggers whose opinions I think could do with less navel gazing by making a deliberately explosive comment in their comment boxes. I don't do that anymore. Trading barbs with trailer trash teaches no one an object lesson, other than you can't teach anyone an object lesson if you can't even teach yourself one. Blogs like Postmodern Papist, where contrary views are treated with hospitality, are rare, and even that blog suffers the occasional troll (who apparently confuses tolerance of blathering with acceptance of the same).

I also agree with Greenberg's allegations of anti-intellectualism by many of the critics of the MSM (and I'm not especially fond of intellectuals, which I'm sure my detractors would ascribe to blatant brain-envy). The fact that I favor reasonableness over pure intellectual ability doesn't mean that I'm a fan of morons with loud voices. There are some wonderful writers on the Internet, but they're few and far between, in my humble opinion, which is all you'll hear on this blog since this blog is, after all, a prime example of what's wrong with blogging. If a dumb ass like me can exist, what hope is there for the future of blogging? I suppose I could twist G.K. Chesterton's famous answer to the question "What's wrong with the world?" and answer the question "What's wrong with the blogosphere?" in the same way: "I am." That said, most of the blogosphere is white noise, with a relatively few clear voices breaking through.

"The best bloggers are the ones who actually draw on their expertise or specialized knowledge in certain fields to contribute to the public discourse ? rather than merely sounding off." Amen! Yet, what is the "expertise" of many of the editors and publishers of daily newspapers that makes them "trusted gatekeepers" of access to the broadest range of ideas and arguments with "as much open-mindedness as we can muster"? A degree in journalism and experience in publishing a newspaper? Is the perceived liberal bias of the MSM grounded in fact or not? Are there better "gatekeepers" for the public? If so, who are they and why are they better than the daily newspapers and the related main stream press?

These are all issues worthy of serious thought and discussion. Professor Greenberg raises a good point in asserting that we ought to be skeptical of the rise of the Internet as THE replacement for the MSM until we think through the implications for our society. Certainly, we shouldn't be gleeful that main stream daily newspaper readership is declining, when that could indicate that we're becoming an increasingly bitter band of illiterates who cocoon ourselves in only those voices that reinforce our preconceptions. This could be evidence not of liberation from the tyranny of the MSM, but of the accelerating atomization of our society.

But hey: as long as people keep visiting your blog and clicking through those ad links, the world is good, eh?